American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the ri

American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that? Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?